Apr 6 2013

s.180 allows tobacco use on personnel decisions

You own a business that you run with your money. You have certain criteria for hiring, promotion, salary, benefits, etc. Is it the role of government to dictate criteria for these decisions about your business with your money? I think not.

Yet according to South Carolina code 41-1-85, you can’t use tobacco use as one of these criteria. I’m not aware of any other specific like this in South Carolina Statute that dictates employer’s personnel decisions. S. 180 simply deletes that section.

There is opposition to this bill based on arguments about personal liberty, privacy, and responsibility. Some have pointed out that tobacco users get picked on regularly for the politically correct. I am respectful and sympathetic to these valid points, however, I disagree with the notion that government can dictate this decision on employers. The emphasis is not about tobacco use (whether its good or bad is a different debate), it is about getting government out of the way of commerce.

As usual, this open forum welcomes all viewpoints, so feel free to comment.

By Kevin Bryant • Uncategorized •

Apr 4 2013

quote by Calvin Coolidge

“Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan “press on” has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race”

By Kevin Bryant • Uncategorized •

Apr 3 2013

All Hail the Power of Jesus’ Name

By Kevin Bryant • Uncategorized •

Apr 2 2013

jMint: don’t do Obamacare

‘For every problem,” H.L. Mencken wrote, “there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong.” Enter Obamacare and one of the main ways that it purports to reduce the number of uninsured: putting more people on Medicaid.

S.C. legislators are being pressured to do just that. The House has rejected the idea, and Gov. Nikki Haley has vowed to veto it, but it’s not dead. And if they ultimately sign on to the idea, they’ll find they’ve made a costly mistake and created a long-term fiscal problem.

Specifically, some in the Legislature want to expand Medicaid eligibility to more adults during the three years the federal government covers the expansion population.

But this allegedly good deal will only bring turmoil to the state’s budget in the future. For one thing, Medicaid expansion is not “catch and release” for the states. Once such an expansion has occurred, it is politically difficult if not impossible to roll back enrollment. It becomes a permanent entitlement — and one that is completely unaffordable.

If South Carolina expands Medicaid, taxpayers would be on the hook for millions. According to our research, the expansion would begin costing the state just four years from now and would cost $612 million over the next 10 years — outstripping any purported “savings.”

Already Medicaid is consuming a greater share of the state budget. Expanding Medicaid will make it even larger and harder to pay for other state priorities, including schools and roads, in the future.

This also assumes that federal funding for the Medicaid expansion goes unchanged. Right now, Washington is struggling to get the country’s fiscal house in order. Any serious efforts to address this crisis would have to address real entitlement reform, including Medicaid.

Although administration officials say Medicaid is off the table, it was just last year that the president’s own budget proposed changing Medicaid financing. So these promises are good only until the president needs money to pay for his many other spending priorities.

But affordability isn’t the only issue. Extending coverage via Medicaid doesn’t mean that individuals will, in fact, gain access to the health care they need. Already, it is becoming harder to find a doctor who will accept a new Medicaid patient, primarily due to lower payment rates.

Obamacare tries to temporarily raise Medicaid payment rates for some doctors. But here too it leaves the state holding the bag and ignores the reality that you can’t add millions of people on to a program where there are fewer doctors to see them. Not only will new and existing patients have a harder time finding a doctor, but the doctors will have less time to spend with each patient. The expansion of Medicaid also will displace private insurance and shift more of the cost of health care to the few who still have private insurance.

Who suffers the most if this happens? The needy, of course, including children. Medicaid doesn’t pay for many procedures, and physicians are only able to manage because of their non-Medicaid patients. If more people are dumped into the program, that lack of compensation will only worsen, and the doctors will be forced to do more for even less.

A massive expansion of Medicaid will not meet the needs of those it is intended to reach and will only further exacerbate the challenges of delivering quality care to those currently on it. Medicaid needs reform, not expansion. These reforms can start now with states, like South Carolina, working to develop their own solution for addressing the needs of the uninsured. Ideas that don’t depend on approval or more financing from the federal government.

But as the Hippocratic Oath says, “First do no harm.” S.C. legislators can honor that dictum by not expanding their Medicaid program.

Former Sen. DeMint is president-elect of the Heritage Foundation; contact him at jim.demint@heritage.org.
ORDER REPRINT

Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/2013/03/24/2689308/demint-medicaid-expansion-wrong.html#storylink=cpy

By Kevin Bryant • Uncategorized •

Apr 1 2013

Powdersville project: Autumn Hill Apartments

There is a lot of anxiety regarding a proposed apartment development (Autumn Hill Apartments) at the intersection of Enterprise Drive and Cooper Lane in Powdersville. Currently, we know the property is under contract with a company in Mt. Pleasant (Autumn Hill Apartments, LLC). There is a pending application with the South Carolina Housing and Development Authority. Here is the application. As you know, I oppose most special interest tax credits, as I did this one.

Some in the community are concerned that the project will be a low-income federally funded project that will introduce an undesirable element into the community that will have a negative impact on law enforcement, their schools, medical facilities, etc. They fear that the project will move forward without being properly vetted.

In that regard, I have respectfully encouraged Anderson County to become more involved with the project and assure the community that they will guide the development, if it happens at all. In addition, assure the community that there will be more public meetings and that their input in valuable. The most successful public projects come from engaging the residents.

I’m suspecting the developer will receive federal tax credits. I have passed the information along to Congressman Duncan’s office and was assured that the congressman also opposes such central planning.

By Kevin Bryant • Uncategorized •

Mar 31 2013

He is risen

By Kevin Bryant • Uncategorized •

Mar 29 2013

worthy is the Lamb that was slain

By Kevin Bryant • Uncategorized •

Mar 28 2013

reasons to add “dual-enrollment” to s.313 “open-enrollment”

SC, it’s time to join the bandwagon. (by Kelsey Farnhan)
Since 2009, parents in Idaho have enjoyed unparalleled freedom to educate children from home without governmental interference. As a result of those tremendous liberties, home schooling in Idaho has thrived and students have excelled.
The state of Idaho is known nationwide for their freedoms in education. Their statutes on dual enrollment are ideals that several other states have adopted as well. In fact, over 26 states enjoy little to no regulations on the matter.
Dual enrollment is the option of non-public school student to enroll in a regular public school and an alternative public school program. A nonpublic student is any student who receives educational instruction outside a public school classroom and such instruction can include, but is not limited to, a private school or a home school. Idaho permits non-public school students to enroll in classes and participate in non-academic programs at state public schools. The state board of education established rules to govern dual enrollment that include the following:
1. The public school can and will maintain records on the non-public school student.
2. Regularly enrolled students will have priority over dually-enrolled students and can bump the dually-enrolled student from programs that have reached maximum capacity.
3. Every public school program is open to dual enrollment.
4. Once dually-enrolled, the student must meet the same behavior and performance standards that are applied to the public school students under the program.
5. If the program requires academic qualification to participate, the qualification is established under this statute and may be satisfied by either of the following:
a. grade level proficiency in any state board of education recognized achievement test; or
b. scores in the average or above average range on any nationally-normed achievement test. Generally, any score on the 26th percentile or higher will qualify the student to participate in such activities. (Home schooled students usually test above the 76th percentile.) School districts shall provide to nonpublic students who wish to participate in dual enrollment activities the opportunity to take state tests or other standardized tests given to all regularly enrolled public school students.
6. Once established, academic eligibility shall cover the school year for which it is established and the next school year. If academic eligibility is lost, it shall be lost for the remainder of that school year and all of the next school year.
7. A student may only dually-enroll for nonacademic activities (e.g., sports) at the public school in whose boundaries the student resides.
8. Oversight of academic standards relating to participation in nonacademic public school activities shall be the responsibility of the primary educational provider for that student.
9. Dual enrollment shall include the option of enrollment in a post-secondary institution. Any credits earned from an accredited post-secondary institution shall be credited toward state board of education high school graduation requirements.
The State of Washington says “Our state law and your tax dollars guarantee part-time enrollment privileges for your homeschooled or non-public school student in public school.” They actually withhold funds to districts that do not comply with their laws on part-time dual enrollment.
In Virginia, part-time enrollment is open to both private school and homeschooled students. School boards and public schools now have an incentive to allow part-time enrollment—partial funding. Part-time students will now be counted in the average daily membership (ADM), and schools will receive up to one-half ADM funding for each part-time student. In VA and ID alike, enrollment is limited based on space.
The list of states goes on and on and what’s interesting is there is quite a mixture of what are typically republican and typically democratic states that support this. This liberty is a necessity and is a next step for improving the SC education system. It’s surprising that more public schools aren’t fighting to promote this freedom. As if “dual enrollment better educates some students” isn’t enough, there is also the incentive that schools generally receive more funding from the district for including these part-time students. They get to claim their test scores, which average over the 76th percentile. It’s time for SC to follow the example of over 26 other states that have implemented this freedom for their taxpayers and provide this track for students to excel further on.
SOURCES:

http://www.iche-idaho.org/idaholaw.html#iiedual

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=392-134

http://heav.org/va-law/access-to-public-school-systems/

We’ve previously written about the amendment that’s on s.313

By Kevin Bryant • Uncategorized •

Mar 27 2013

Lee Bright on Glenn Beck

By Kevin Bryant • Uncategorized •

Mar 26 2013

dew q&a

1-Please send the Salary totals in calendar year 2011 and 2012, separated by all employees and executive staff.

2011 Total Salaries $40,129,201 Executive Salaries $865,217
2012 Total Salaries $41,483,077 Executive Salaries $1,119,330

2-Please give the Federal Statute that references the training for veteran’s services.

VIII E. Mandatory Training: According to 38 USC, § 4102A, DVOP specialists appointed after January 1, 2006 are required to receive specialized training provided by the National Veterans’ Training Institute (NVTI). Under current guidelines, that training must be completed within three years of assignment as a DVOP specialist. Each covered DVOP specialist must complete two mandatory training classes – NVTI’s Labor and Employment Specialist course and the Case Management course – within that required timeframe.

IX D. Mandatory Training: According to 38 USC, § 4102A, LVER staff appointed after January 1, 2006 are required to receive specialized training provided by NVTI. Under current guidance, that training must be completed within three years of assignment as an LVER. Each covered LVER must complete two mandatory training classes – NVTI’s Labor and Employment Specialist course and the Promoting Partnerships for Employment course – within the required timeframe.

38 USC § 4102A – ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF LABOR FOR VETERANS’ EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING; PROGRAM FUNCTIONS; REGIONAL ADMINISTRATORS

(5) Subject to subsection (c), make available for use in each State by grant or contract such funds as may be necessary to support—
(A) disabled veterans’ outreach program specialists appointed under section 4103A (a)(1) of this title,
(B) local veterans’ employment representatives assigned under section 4104 (b) of this title, and
(C) the reasonable expenses of such specialists and representatives described in subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively, for training, travel, supplies, and other business expenses, including travel expenses and per diem for attendance at the National Veterans’ Employment and Training Services Institute established under section 4109 of this title.

3-Please give total number of contested claims awarded, total number of contested claims, the $ amounts paid of contested claims from calendar 2012 and for 2011.

4- Please give total number of all claims awarded, total number of claims, the $ amounts paid of all claims from calendar 2012 and for 2011.

Answer to Questions 3 and 4:

2011: Total claims filed: 181,656; Eligible claims: 111,392 (61%) $ Paid to all claims: $394.2 million

Contested discharge claims: 46,164; Fully eligible contested claims: 15,784 (34%). Average weeks disqualification contested claims: 11.8 weeks $ Paid to contested claims after disqualification: $38.3 million (9.7% of all benefits paid)

2012: Total claims filed: 158,963; Eligible claims: 93,236 (59%) $ Paid to all claims: $243.1 million

Contested discharge claims: 43,394; Fully eligible contested claims: 12,431 (29%). Average weeks disqualification contested claims: 17.2 weeks $ Paid to contested claims after disqualification: $8.7 million (3.6% of all benefits paid)

By Kevin Bryant • Uncategorized •